Hong-Kong Protests


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just goes to show how bad the new law is - even pro-Beijing/CCP officials disagree on its consequences.
You mean if not everyone unanimously agrees on the implementation and consequences of a law then it's bad? Is that how democracy works in your country? Unanimous vote needed to pass everything? Kim JongUn wins 100% of the votes with 100% approval rating in North Korea; he's the best leader on earth, right? LOL

This actually shows 2 things: 1. the abundance of freedom of expression for dissent there is in China even under the new law, and 2. how terribly you need to bend logic in order to try to discredit China.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
And I hate to sound like a broken record, but the mere possibility of giving HK the authority to make its own decisions in terms of matters of foreign affairs or security means that giving HK "full democracy" cannot be achieved without effectively neutering its ability to mount any kind of challenge to Beijing on anything that the central government cares about.
There wasn't any real demand for such political rights in Hong Kong, because that would have meant independence and not autonomy. You're welcome to show me one of the main pro-democracy parties making it a part of their manifesto pre-2012 to seek powers on those areas, but I can't recall it.

Plus Beijing has repeatedly "interpreted" the law to its own advantage, and the very fact it has now imposed this law on Hong Kong goes to show it could have directly intervened if a Chief Executive had overstepped their authority.

There was never a threat of Hong Kong taking defence or foreign policy powers, either legally or de facto.

Rather, what is most feared is the loss of freedom to openly act against Chinese interests and act against Chinese people or carry out violence and subversion in the city and the gradual loss of the ability to be openly localist against mainland Chinese people.
I don't think that's the case at all. Up until the shitty "reform" package, relations between HK and mainland China were fine. Then it came out that the CCP wanted to remove any choice from the election by limiting the field to 2 or 3 candidates its allies in HK would pick. But it didn't stop there. There was the kidnapping of the Causeway Bay Books staff, the unnecessary order that mainland Chinese security personnel could be staffed inside Hong Kong at the railway station, the extradition treaty, the police brutality following the protests, the fact that Beijing was perceived to order Lam to stay in office rather than resign, the veto on an independent investigation into the policing of the protests, etc. You can say that the CCP wasn't behind everything, but when its directly interfering on some of those things it can't then pretend it has no influence on the rest.

Individually these things might not have caused a problem, but together it's completely understandable why a lot of HKers started being openly hostile towards the CCP over the years.

let's not enable the holier than thou soundbites to perpetuate and ignore the fundamental identity and localist factors that have been driving HK political turmoil over these years
That sounds an awful lot like victim blaming. "Everything in Hong Kong would have been fine if locals had just kept quiet and accepted the political scraps thrown from Beijing's table."
 

Maxef208

New Member
Registered Member
HKers have very strong sense of class/elitism. Not sure if they inherited this from Brits, or "old Chinese ways" that were abolished.
I always got this sense from them.
1. Japanese (Basically worship of Japan, only place I have ever seen people use Sony smartphones)
2. HK, S. Koreans, Taiwanese
3. North American born Cantonese, Singapore Chinese
4. Mainlanders
5. Other overseas Chinese (Malay, Indonesia, Philippines)
6. Viet-Chinese/Vietnamese
7. All other asians
Brits. It's a pretty common theme for an oppressed person to instead try to oppress someone else they've been told they are better than. It's massive coping and by design so the actual oppressor can deflect and benefit from these 2 fighting each other. It's also why some Indians have such huge ego's over East and SE Asians cuz even though their whole country was colonized, they were allowed to serve the Brits in more involved roles and got more pats on the head under British Empire control, so they feel "superior" being the house slaves above the field slaves.

Your list is pretty accurate but I can tell you that N American born Cantonese/Chinese aren't really treated better unless you're descended from HK. Once they hear a tinge of accent in Cantonese especially if it's not HK style, they hate you too and may see you as "fake". They only like N American born Chinese/Cantonese/Asians if they are their ideal blend of east and west. White/Asian mixed people they go nuts over. As we've seen they don't particularly like Taiwan either, cuz it's also eww Mandarin. The two only share a common trait in Japan fetishism among the youth and some elderly. This whole thing is what I call the "Asian civilization games" where each group tries to claim the other group is less civilized and disgusting, while ignoring their own habits that get interpreted that way by outsiders, who are the ultimate audience they are trying to appeal to.
 

Maxef208

New Member
Registered Member
My family is from Guangzhou. Our Cantonese is much more pure than many HKers yet we experienced plenty of discrimination from HK immigrants. HKers' superiority runs deep
I always find it funny when HK people want to criticize Guangdong Cantonese as "impure" when they've mixed in so many english words into their Cantonese and love using English as broken as it is but Mandarin is shamed. Kinda immediately gives you an idea of the mindset of the person, colonizer language=good, another Chinese language=bad. They also think Cantonese on the mainland is "slurred" and I can't help but wonder what they think they sound like because afaich that Cantonese is closer in sound to the Cantonese of HK just 3 decades ago when HK media hit prominence and not the mess that is coming out of some of these protesters mouths.
 

vincent

Senior Member
The way I see it, HKers lost their wealth edge to mainlanders and they are desperately want to maintain their “superiority“, hence all the BS about “fight for democracy“ is just to differentiate themselves from mainlanders and not letting the lowly mainlanders have a say. I have plenty of relatives living in HK. HK up to 70’s is still a shithole. My uncle had to get waters from communal faucets because of water shortages. The funny things, many HK immigrants claimed they are rich even though we know they are not. HKers are not much different from Indians living in India.
 

localizer

Captain
Registered Member
The way I see it, HKers lost their wealth edge to mainlanders and they are desperately want to maintain their “superiority“, hence all the BS about “fight for democracy“ is just to differentiate themselves from mainlanders and not letting the lowly mainlanders have a say. I have plenty of relatives living in HK. HK up to 70’s is still a shithole. My uncle had to get waters from communal faucets because of water shortages. The funny things, many HK immigrants claimed they are rich even though we know they are not. HKers are not much different from Indians living in India.

 

KYli

Senior Member
There wasn't any real demand for such political rights in Hong Kong, because that would have meant independence and not autonomy. You're welcome to show me one of the main pro-democracy parties making it a part of their manifesto pre-2012 to seek powers on those areas, but I can't recall it.

Plus Beijing has repeatedly "interpreted" the law to its own advantage, and the very fact it has now imposed this law on Hong Kong goes to show it could have directly intervened if a Chief Executive had overstepped their authority.

There was never a threat of Hong Kong taking defence or foreign policy powers, either legally or de facto.
Hong Kong was granted autonomous under the terms that it can't be a staging ground for anti-CCP, anti-China, and anti-Chinese. Did any of the opposition parties adhered to these terms. Actions speak louder than words. Do you think any of them are stupid enough to put these things in their manifesto? When their senior members were taking money from foreign countries and Jimmy Lai, writing books about independent, lecturing Hong Kong identity and hatred against mainland Chinese, channeling resources to support FLGs, labor unions, NGOs, and churches in China. Did these oppostion parties adhered to one country two systems.


I don't think that's the case at all. Up until the shitty "reform" package, relations between HK and mainland China were fine. Then it came out that the CCP wanted to remove any choice from the election by limiting the field to 2 or 3 candidates its allies in HK would pick. But it didn't stop there. There was the kidnapping of the Causeway Bay Books staff, the unnecessary order that mainland Chinese security personnel could be staffed inside Hong Kong at the railway station, the extradition treaty, the police brutality following the protests, the fact that Beijing was perceived to order Lam to stay in office rather than resign, the veto on an independent investigation into the policing of the protests, etc. You can say that the CCP wasn't behind everything, but when its directly interfering on some of those things it can't then pretend it has no influence on the rest.

Individually these things might not have caused a problem, but together it's completely understandable why a lot of HKers started being openly hostile towards the CCP over the years.
Are you kidding me? Things were never fine. Over one millions of Hong Kongers left Hong Kong before the handover. If it is fine, then article 23 would have been passed. Macau has no problem of passing national security laws but somehow Hong Kong can't. Even Martin Lee now regretted that the article 23 was not passed. And everyone knows how anti-ccp Martin Lee has been. Beside many of the moderate pro-Dem camp now have expressed that they should have taken the offer of universial suffrage from Beijing. Beijing has given Hong Kong the best terms possible but these oppositions were never satisfied because they wanted to be in charge and kicked Beijing out of any decision making in HK.

These rambling of inconsequential grievances were just pure priceless. The British had massacred thousands of native Hong Kongers during the Six -Day War and afterwards. The 1956 and 1967 riots resulted in dozens of deaths by the hand of the British. Hundred and even thousands of Hong Kongers were sentenced to years in prison for political reasons and more were deported purely because they spoke out against the British. Political presecution were very common and HK Special Branch was so powerful that it could make any man or woman to disappear overnight and any newspaper to be shut down immediately. What rights do Hong Kongers have back then, universal suffrage, are kidding, the highest ranking Chinese police officer is called chief of detectives back then. It is purely comical you would dare to hint China didn't grant more rights to Hong Kongers than the British ever did and things were worse now.



That sounds an awful lot like victim blaming. "Everything in Hong Kong would have been fine if locals had just kept quiet and accepted the political scraps thrown from Beijing's table."
Tell that to the British. They ruled with iron fist, committed many massacres, violated so many human rights and still get away with these and people of Hong Kong still worshiped the GB and claimed the colony years were just so free. Maybe China should do what the British did in HK and everything would be ok.
 

MortyandRick

New Member
Registered Member
There wasn't any real demand for such political rights in Hong Kong, because that would have meant independence and not autonomy. You're welcome to show me one of the main pro-democracy parties making it a part of their manifesto pre-2012 to seek powers on those areas, but I can't recall it.

Plus Beijing has repeatedly "interpreted" the law to its own advantage, and the very fact it has now imposed this law on Hong Kong goes to show it could have directly intervened if a Chief Executive had overstepped their authority.

There was never a threat of Hong Kong taking defence or foreign policy powers, either legally or de facto.



I don't think that's the case at all. Up until the shitty "reform" package, relations between HK and mainland China were fine. Then it came out that the CCP wanted to remove any choice from the election by limiting the field to 2 or 3 candidates its allies in HK would pick. But it didn't stop there. There was the kidnapping of the Causeway Bay Books staff, the unnecessary order that mainland Chinese security personnel could be staffed inside Hong Kong at the railway station, the extradition treaty, the police brutality following the protests, the fact that Beijing was perceived to order Lam to stay in office rather than resign, the veto on an independent investigation into the policing of the protests, etc. You can say that the CCP wasn't behind everything, but when its directly interfering on some of those things it can't then pretend it has no influence on the rest.

Individually these things might not have caused a problem, but together it's completely understandable why a lot of HKers started being openly hostile towards the CCP over the years.



That sounds an awful lot like victim blaming. "Everything in Hong Kong would have been fine if locals had just kept quiet and accepted the political scraps thrown from Beijing's table."
Sounds quite biased. Not to say the CCP didn't make any mistakes but looking at it objectively, HK people never supported China that much to begin with. I've been to HK in 2001 and even then the animosity against people from the mainland was high.

Lots of people went to HK to escape from CCP in mainland China so their views on China are very biased. Many elements of foreign operatives in HK operating without impunity.

HK is the gateway of China and where China recives a lot of foreign funds. I am pretty confident that if China allowed unvetted candidates to be CE of HK, there will definitely be a candidate who will voice for independence and with western influence in HK, you can bet that they will try to get fat candidate to the top, which will cause China to lose control of their gateway and would be a disaster for china development. That absolutely cannot be allowed to happen. You can see what happened in Brazil as an indication, or Bolivia etc.
 

B.I.B.

Senior Member
These rambling of inconsequential grievances were just pure priceless. The British had massacred thousands of native Hong Kongers during the Six -Day War and afterwards. The 1956 and 1967 riots resulted in dozens of deaths by the hand of the British. Hundred and even thousands of Hong Kongers were sentenced to years in prison for political reasons and more were deported purely because they spoke out against the British. Political presecution were very common and HK Special Branch was so powerful that it could make any man or woman to disappear overnight and any newspaper to be shut down immediately. What rights do Hong Kongers have back then, universal suffrage, are kidding, the highest ranking Chinese police officer is called chief of detectives back then. It is purely comical you would dare to hint China didn't grant more rights to Hong Kongers than the British ever did and things were worse now.
While the Brits did a lot of bad things, can you expand on the bolded parts of your post because I have never heard that before. thanks
 

Top